These are Essays from current Mariemont High School Seniors, writing about Government through the eyes of media.

Taylor Giordullo — Our Lives Compared to Others

When the delegates of the Constitutional Convention met to create a new foundation for The United States government, one of their main concerns was to ensure that the leaders of the country could not infringe upon the rights of the people. Those responsible for the creation of the new government system were apprehensive because they had recently suffered suppression under the rule of Britain, which did not give them fair means of representation. But the restrictions placed on colonial Americans are not even comparable to those enforced on the countries that were a part of the Soviet Union. The USSR went to great lengths to makes sure that all people were adhering to its strict laws, stripping them of their freedoms to deter them from going against the government.  For example, there was a secret police called the KGB that was allowed to prosecute “criminals” without any evidence or even a fair trial. The movie The Lives of Others shows what life was like in East Germany in 1984, when the USSR had control and the Berlin Wall was still standing.

The film follows the life of a man, Gerd Wiesler, who works for the secret East German police force called the Stasi and has recently been assigned to spy on a “suspicious” playwright named Georg Dreyman. Wiesler bugs Dreyman’s house and tracks him for several months, eventually determining that he is not committing illegal activity and is actually quite loyal to the Communist party. When he reports his findings to the Minister of Culture, Bruno Hempf, it is revealed to him that the minister simply wanted to get Dreyman out of the way because of his desire to be with his girlfriend, an actress named Christa-Maria Sieland. Wiesler suddenly realizes the depth of the corruption within the government, and he becomes deeply disgusted with himself for partaking in it. Meanwhile, Dreyman is becoming more suspicious of the government. He becomes particularly enraged when a fellow playwright commits suicide due to the fact that the government will no longer allow him to produce because of a controversial statement he made. Dreyman resolves to write an anonymous article about the alarming suicide rate in East Germany, information that has not been released to the public for almost ten years. Once the article is published, the Stasi go to Dreyman’s house to arrest him, but before they can get there Wiesler intervenes and takes the typewriter so that they will be unable to find any evidence. When the Stasi arrive, they only find Sieland and they interrogate and torture her, eventually convincing her to confess that it was Dreyman who wrote the article. Sieland, horrified by her betrayal, commits suicide. However, despite her confession, the Stasi are unable to convict Dreyman and he goes free.

Years later, after the fall of the Berlin wall, the playwright goes to look at the Stasi archives and finds Wiesler’s file. He discovers that Wiesler was the reason that he went free, and that he purposely withheld information from the government that could incriminate him. To show his gratitude, Dreyman writes a novel about the corruption of East Germany and dedicates it to Wiesler.

Throughout the film, I took notice of many examples in which the East German government blatantly infringed upon the rights of its citizens. At the beginning of the movie when Wiesler begins tailing Dreyman, he is allowed to simply enter his house and bug it to further conduct his investigation. In America, we have many laws to protect citizens from this type of violation, including the law that requires officials to have a warrant to enter a person’s home or to bug a suspected criminal. Furthermore, before Wiesler began his investigation of Dreyman, he had no evidence that he was involved in anti-government activities. Most countries today assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty; however, in East Germany any person who seems “suspicious” is automatically thought to be guilty.

Another shocking component of The Lives of Others was the all-reaching authority that the government had over every aspect of their peoples’ lives. For example, when Wiesler goes to bug Dreyman’s house, a neighbor spots him. Wiesler threatens the woman, saying if she reveals his actions to Dreyman he will revoke her daughter’s acceptance to medical school. In addition, when the government was interrogating Sieland, they used cruel methods such as depriving her of sleep for an extended period of time.

The film offers a sharp contrast against the freedoms that we enjoy in today’s American society. It was an eye-opening experience to be exposed to the corruption of the East German government and to realize that we are very lucky to have a government that protects our rights.

Sander Henning — House of Cards Review

Season 2 of Netflix’s House of Cards became available to stream just recently. The show follows a Democratic Congressman from South Carolina, as he tries to advance in the political ladder. In the very beginning of season one, viewers know Frank Underwood, the main character, as just a normal congressman trying to get legislation passed through an education bill. At this point viewers are able to get a visual representation of how most Congressmen and women seem to work. Each one is trying to get funding or laws passed to help them for reelection in their district, and they are playing the media to be in their favor.  However, this slow paced series develops and the true characteristics of Frank Underwood arise. The main character that was portrayed as a great person, leader, and congressman, is now seen as a psychopath who has no care for the people around him. However, the show still paints a positive light on Frank. This leaves viewers wanting Frank to succeed, but also to have to face punishment for his actions. Frank has every step planned out beforehand precisely to push him higher up the political spectrum, advancing to vice president at the end of the first season.

Netflix came out with the show when public opinion of Congress was extremely low, many people thinking criminals and psychopaths lead our country in Washington. House of Cards appeals to these people, and shows the possibility that someone like Frank can reach important posts in Washington. With this series Netflix could possible change the future of television. While Netflix is not the first ones to create content in which viewers pay a subscription to, HBO, Showtime, etc. , they are the first to have all the episodes available at once, without a week or two in between new episodes. Procera networks estimates that 2% of all 33.4 million Netflix users binged on the series and watched all 13 episodes of season two in the first weekend (Mitovich). After the first season aired and got so much positive feedback, Netflix increased its budget to create new and original content produced by Netflix. Netflix had a $100 million budget for the first two seasons of House of Cards. To make any money on this Netfix has to increase its viewership by 520,834 subscribers.  This may be a lot of people and money, but according to BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield, Netflix creating original programming has boosted the number of subscribers by more than the necessary 520,834, and also caused the stock to go up (Yousuf).

House of Cards, Emmy winner, and nominated for two Golden Globes, has had so much success for several reasons. First, the accuracy of how government works is astonishing. Although Cole Stewart’s research on the plausibility of Frank Underwood’s doings are extremely slim, how politicians act to get legislation passed, to get reelected, and to get funding seems to be how Washington truly works. Critics claim that how Underwood deals with other politicians, is very similar to how real politician act with one another to accomplish their goals. In an episode in season two, VP, Frank Underwood is presiding over the Senate. Republicans do not have enough votes to strike down Democratic legislation, so all of them leave so there is no quorum. Underwood uses several congressional rules that force the Senators, who are truly able, to return to vote. Many sources say this is politically correct, and Underwood uses real expressed powers the VP has to pass legislation he wants. This is only one of many examples that show the accuracy of some of the shows aspects.

Second, the casting for each role is perfect. Kevin Spacey, who plays Frank Underwood, and Robin Wright, who plays Claire Underwood, perfect their acting and literally become their characters they act. Lastly, this show develops brilliantly. Although it is slow and methodical, it grasps the attention of the viewer, as seen by how many people watch all the episodes at once. The Machiavellian nature of the characters in this show, intrigue and capture viewers’ attention. Sometimes viewers can only laugh at the ingenious of Frank, who is able to plan every detail precisely enough to get whatever he wants. The show is extremely successful because of these main reasons. People enjoy watching a show where Frank Underwood is able to get Congress to actually do something for once.

Hans Hinebaugh — Mitt: the Untold Toils of a Presidential Election

In this Greg Whiteley documentary exclusive to Netflix and produced by Exhibit A and One Potato Productions, Mitt allows an intimate, behind-the-scenes look at the life and struggles of both a man running for president and his family.

Whiteley approached Mitt Romney’s son, Tagg, with the project.  After some initial hesitation from Mitt himself, the entire family was on board with the documentary.  Says Whiteley, “The campaign didn’t like me around. They put up plenty of resistance. But the family was on board from the moment I met them” (Time).

After opening on the family’s debate on the pros and cons of running for president, the film jumps to Romney’s first day on the campaign trail in 2007.  It is revealed in his first television interview in Dearborn, Michigan that 43 percent of Americans didn’t know who he was at the time.  This changed just before the New Hampshire primary in 2008.  As he and his team prepare for a debate, Whiteley films Romney and the producer of the debate arguing over the format and moderation of the discussion that will take place.  It contributes to the overarching message of the documentary that politics is incredibly tough, hardly glorious, and ridiculously scrutinized.  To support this, not long after the debate, Mitt mentions an opposing campaign manager that had said about him, “I want to kick his teeth in.”  Coupled with this, son Josh Romney is posed the question, “Is this all worth it?”  He bluntly states, “This is awful. Nobody good runs for president because the scrutiny is so awful.”  Mitt and his family are often shown together in hotel rooms simply discussing what is next, and praying for guidance on how to proceed. They watch helplessly as McCain takes the Florida primary, ultimately coming to debate putting themselves through the rigors of campaigning again in four years .

Moving to 2012, Whiteley speeds through the Republican primary with a montage of Mitt’s debates and victories, ending with his nomination at the Republican National Convention.  The screen then cuts to the infamous tape when Romney was caught criticizing the 47% of Americans whose support he cannot win.  Though the film does not address any clarification or correction of this statement, it does acknowledge that the tape was very damaging to Romney going into the fall.  Whiteley again jumps ahead to Romney’s debate preparation with Rob Portman before the October 3 debate with Barack Obama.  In the days leading up to the debate, Romney and his wife, Anne, are largely isolated from their family in their hotel suite.  Though their sons appear sporadically, there are fewer prayers and family discussions as the campaign becomes more intense.  However, in an acknowledgement of Mitt’s persisting family values, Whiteley does capture a shot of Mitt’s debate notes.  At the top of the page, Romney reveals he always writes “Dad” since he believes he would never have gotten anywhere in politics without his own father.

After his debate at Hofstra University, the film moves forward to election day.  As the day drags on, the family’s tension rises and they become more frustrated as it becomes clear they will lose.  In the closing scene, Whiteley films Anne and Mitt in their home looking peacefully and quietly out of their porch window, before fading to black.

The film received mixed criticism. The Huffington Post, a liberal online news source, criticizes the film for its overly favorable view of Romney, and cites the superficiality of politics revealed in the film as a reason why Romney was not elected. No doubt, the film did present a looser side to Romney that cannot help but portray him in a favorable view. On the other hand, in an interview with Time, Whiteley claims he never filmed anything trying to better Romney’s image.  “There wasn’t anything in the back of my head saying ‘this is going to make people like him.’ That never occurred to me” (Time).  According to Business Insider, an online current events news source, “Mitt is not an argument for a Romney presidency. What it is, is a highly rare look at a candidate who admits, at one point, that he is ‘deeply flawed.’”  Ultimately Greg Whiteley should be applauded for capturing the emotions and consequences of politics, not just the scandals and superficiality of the politicians.

Abby Moreton — Is Arizona Trying to Pass an Anti-Gay Law?

Lately there has been much public outcry over the proposed House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062 in Arizona. The bill passed the Arizona Senate in a 17-13 vote before moving on to the House to pass 33-27. Following its passage through the Arizona State Legislature, public debate over the morality of this potential law began. In case you have not heard about this event or you have chosen to just pay attention to the media, the overview of the bill on the website of the Arizona legislature states that it “revises the definition of exercise of religion and person and extends the prohibition on substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion to applications of the law by nongovernmental persons.”

At first, this appears to be a good bill. Exercise of religion: good. Exercise of person: great. Nongovernmental persons: even better. However, there seems to be much more to this bill than a simple extension of the freedom of religion.

Since 1789 with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America and later the Bill of Rights, there has been an American commitment to religious freedom. It can even be argued that this commitment began before the Constitution with the colonization of America to escape religious oppression and persecution. It can also be argued that it continued long after with the freeing of Jews in concentration camps in World War II and with the continuous flow of immigrants of all religions into the nation.

Granted, there have been times when other religions, particularly Christianity, have been pushed too hard onto unwilling subjects, e.g. the Great Awakenings, the Native American missions, and, more recently, the push to suppress Islam. All of these conflicts plus the problems that have often arisen in the history of America due to the fight for separation between church and state make quite a messy religious history for the United States. Despite these problems, America has never needed any other law in addition to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect its citizens’ freedom of religion.

Yes, there are often quibbles and arguments and even court cases surrounding allegations of possible violations of the “exercise of religion.” Yes, there are traditions rooted in “this nation under God” that are objectionable under the First Amendment. However, when put to the test, freedom has always prevailed under this amendment alone. So, how is it beneficial for any person, whether governmental or not, to create a law that “extends the prohibition on substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion” which has existed in the Bill of Rights for over 200 years? Better yet, what is the purpose of this law if there is no hidden agenda?

The answer is none. There is no purpose in this law other than to give “nongovernmental persons” the excuse of religion to discriminate against gays and lesbians en route to marriage. If someone believes that God dislikes gay people, fine. I am among the opposition, but fine. What is not fine, however, is a company being able, by law, to turn away the marital business of gay people or people of different religions or people of no religion at all because they do not believe in the same things. That is discrimination in its most basic form, a plague that has chased this nation for too long.

Thankfully, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer agreed. She vetoed this bill on February 26, 2014 because she believed it was too broad and “could result in unintended and negative consequences.” If this bill had become law, this nation may have begun to revert back to the structures and expectations that the colonists so long ago tried to escape: religious persecution.